Sign In

What's Hot

World 3.0

What elements
should a new, promising foreign and security policy – which I wouldlike to call
World 3.0 following Microsoft’s developing steps – include in order to make
it capable of deterring enemies, strengthening the forces of freedom and making
the world safer and more peaceful?

A policy
corresponding with the national interests of 21st century
freedom-loving, democratic nations while also meeting the needs of billions of
people in impoverished and underdeveloped countries for food, jobs, and human
dignity.

A smart and
effective policy capable of mastering the global challenges and changes.

Moreover, a
policy we can afford as highly indebted nations with limited financial means.

A smart
foreign policy meeting the desires and dreams of the new Facebook generation,
the new young and active elite from Cape Town to Seattle or Beijing.

An active
foreign policy which does not remain stuck in administrating the status quo and
defense of national interests through deterrence as does World 1.0.

One which
does not continue the weakness of our current mainstream World 2.0; a foreign policy which fails to offer coherent and
creative action plans for crisis management, with little deeds and much talk
which does not deliver feasible results and staggers from one media-friendly
conference to the next.

A better foreign policy shaping the
globe for our children– Networking a Safer World 3.0.

World 3.0 is
the upgrade of World 1.0 and World 2.0. The historical maxims and wisdom of the
importance of power and national
interests as described by Cardinal Richelieu or German Chancellor Bismarck
and the needs of Realpolitik a la
Hans J. Morgenthau and Henry A. Kissinger are still the solid base of World
3.0, but these are no longer sufficient for a successful foreign policy in the
21st century.

World 1.0 and
Word 2.0 are no longer enough to serve our national interests in the new
atomized, non-polar world where there are many more new players, instant mass
communication tools, demand from billions of people for quick improvements, and
limited resources.

What kind of
priorities, double-strategies, and actions do we need in our globalized world
to promote peace, stability, and human rights in our time?

How can our foreign policy in this fragmented world,
with many of its seven billion individual inhabitants struggling for food,
shelter, and human dignity, achieve positive change?

What can it achieve in the fight against terrorism,
nuclear weapons in the hands of mullahs, famine in East Africa, pirates and
greedy politicians pillaging their impoverished countries and installing
themselves comfortably in authoritarian structures?

Have we reached the limits of what is possible, but
are unwilling to admit it?

Are we not just puffing ourselves up like a vain
rooster unable to lay eggs?

Dozens of books could be and have been written about
different good ideas, concepts, and problem-solving approaches. Admirable
suggestions are to be found in experts’ periodicals, books, and speeches.

I would like to outline just a few ideas prompting the reader to further discussions and
publications. It is up to everyone to join this important discussion process
with creative ideas. Sometimes a young student in Cairo
has a better idea than Henry Kissinger in New York. Kindly address your own ideas to
[email protected] or to the Facebook site of the World
Security Network Foundation.

A Tool-Box and
many craftsmen

Let me start with a simple metaphor.

Think of yourself as a plumber with a tool-box full of
hammers, screwdrivers, and twenty other different tools. As a good craftsman
you will first look at what you have to repair and then choose the tools which
serve you best – job done – quickly, easily, and effectively.

This is not the case in foreign policy as yet. We must
address this weakness and change it.

Many “craftsmen” are on hand to address hot spots in
foreign policy. Politicians in parliaments and parties with different views,
the media, public opinion, the foreign office, the defense ministry, the UN, as
well as many actors from other countries. That amounts to several dozen people
with strong egos, national perceptions and sometimes arrogance and ignorance.
Sounds like chaos and a big mess – and it will almost certainly start like
that. Fritz Kraemer used to say “Great interests are at stake, but small
interests govern.”

In the end action comes too late, it is mostly
uncoordinated, and costs the tax payer a lot of money. This is the negative
experience of Iraq and Afghanistan.

No foreign minister, ministry, or respected
institute predicted the Arab Spring, nor the fall of the Berlin Fall and
re-unification of Germany,
or the collapse of the USSR.
How embarrassing if you compare this with the strong egos and pompous speeches
of many diplomats and politicians who were involved. The track-record of World
2.0 is frustratingly poor after the Cold War and the golden times of the
European Spring.

Libya as a test
of World 3.0

One of the
best and most successful U.S.
ambassadors and member of the International Advisory Board of the World
Security Network Foundation is J.D. Bindenagel, who negotiated the two most
creative international treaties of the last decades. He was appointed by
President Bill Clinton in 1999 as U.S. Ambassador and Special Envoy for
Holocaust issues and reached agreements on World War II-era forced labor with Germany.
From 2002-2003, Bindenagel was special U.S. negotiator for "Conflict
Diamonds", leading a U.S. government negotiation which resulted in a
worldwide ban on the sale of illicit, rough "conflict" diamonds.
“Colonel Gaddafi’s threat of genocide immediately called to mind his principles
of showing strength and avoiding ‘provocative weakness’ against anti-democratic
forces, while emphasizing the importance of power in foreign affairs as a
backup for diplomacy. As Friedrich the Great admonished his critics: ‘Diplomacy
without arms is like an orchestra without instruments’; certainly, the searing
experience of the Second World War, the lessons of the Holocaust and the ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo have had a profound effect on foreign policy
principles. The forceful action the
United Nations, NATO, and Arab leaders took to end the Libyan dictatorship in
2011. Reliability and commitment to Western values came after a long
political struggle”, Ambassador J.D. Bindenagel noted.

As a rare
exception Libya proved in 2011 that political hot spots can also be dealt with
effectively. There were no Western boots on the ground, the local rebels in Benghazi occupied the driver’s seat, and the push came not
from the United States but
from France and the United Kingdom.
The tiny and wealthy Gulf state of Qatar
and the United Arab Emirates
supported the air campaign with 18 jets from the Muslim world side by side with
European allies like Norway
and Italy.
This first joint NATO-Arab military campaign conducted more than 20,000 air
strikes in support of the rebels. This confirmed Dr Fritz Kraemer´s doctrine that
nothing works without power. Surprisingly the UN Security Council passed a
resolution with Russia and China
abstaining. The Arab public as well as the Qatar-owned TV station Al Jazeera
supported NATO. The intervention aimed to protect human rights and prevent
slaughter by the mad colonel. Minimum input resulted in maximum output.
Suffering a minimum of casualties among rebels and civilians, no losses of NATO
jets or soldiers, and without burning huge amounts of money, a new post-dictatorship
government was established in Libya.
The mission was accomplished with a globally networked and innovative World 3.0
approach.

We should never merely blame the bad guys, jihadists,
or dictators for what they do. We must instead be self-critical, examining what
needs to be improved to make us smarter as well as stronger than our enemies.
We need a continually adapting decent foreign policy avoiding any ignorance or
arrogance.

Our own bureaucracies, including weak politicians in
cabinets and parliaments, constitute our main adversary. Experience shows that
at the end of a frustrating, grinding decision-making processes we usually burn
too much money for little output and are too slow, uncoordinated, and
inefficient. This red tape monster is harder to fight than any enemy. It is our
main Achilles Heel in foreign affairs, causing us to win on the battle field
but lose in the end and produce one “lost victory” after another. Our enemies do
not constitute the main threat, but rather our system´s inability to deal
effectively and creatively with them.

Worlds of difference lie between the dynamics of the actual
movers and shapers of today’s world, such as the young Egyptian bloggers, the young
Palestinians and Israelis or Syrian and Libyan activists willing to risk their
lives for freedom on the one hand, and the planning staffs of the State
Department, the Foreign Office, or the Auswärtiges Amt on the other.

On the whole the foreign policy establishment is
unable to keep up with such rapid developments, barely understands the complex
new world, and hardly exerts any influence on the course of events. Foreign
policy officials have become onlookers.

The powerful are attempting to shape the world with
pep talks, international conferences, and state visits, but mostly end up
splashing in their own bathtubs.

Political rhetoric carries the day, while actual plans
and deeds are rare.

A year ago, the ousted rulers in Tunisia, Libya, and
Egypt were openly courted. No foreign minister predicted what would follow so
soon.

Almost all of the much vaunted international
conferences produce nice TV images for the electorate but no concrete options,
proposals, and plans at all. They consist of exhaustive speeches with many buzz
words, but an “action vacuum”.

Today, a nearly endless diagnosis replaces therapy.

The usual discussions and international meetings
dealing with foreign policy mostly end with the demand “We ought to do
something”, but without considering consequences, plans, and precise implementation.

Hardly a single politician or leading civil servant
asks the hard questions about the where, when, and how. But this is where
effective work starts. Success or failure will be determined in this realm of
plans and options.

Listening to politicians conveys the impression that
they confuse their speeches with implementation according to the platitude:
“But that is what I said.”

Proactive policy is the missing asset in the foreign
affairs of the mainly bourgeois politicians and diplomats who are pleased to
have a nice position and title but avoid fighting for values and a better
future of our children.

We need proactive White Revolutionists for World 3.0 –
otherwise we are destined to fail.

The subjunctive has taken over.

Foreign policy is no longer shaped and conducted;
instead it is geared toward the media saying what should, could, and must be
done.

A growing number of problems are being merely
described, even by research institutes, but none are being processed and
mastered. The books published by well known foreign affairs institutes describe
the different positions and problems but almost never dare to make any clear
proposal with options.

This creates a huge traffic jam and pileup of too many
problems on the foreign policy motorway.

We are leaving the initiative to a few radical
activists – who represent a tiny minority of around one percent of the global
population – and through our passivity we are creating an action vacuum full of
provocative weaknesses.

We are not acting, but instead becoming the object of
action.

We are not shaping, but instead reacting to new
developments.

We are not actively stimulating and effectively
supporting the silent majorities of 99 percent plus in specific countries, but
remaining passive bystanders.

We are not helping with deeds, only advertising our
interest with empty words.

Thus we lose influence and reputation.

In view of today´s paradigmatic shift in foreign
policy, what is needed is a new preventive stabilization policy, transcending traditional
deterrence.

We must systematically neutralize the numerous time
bombs large and small, before it is too late and they get out of control. Pure
crisis management no longer suffices.

We must address the roots of tensions such as ethnic
conflicts, hunger, poverty, population growth, water shortage, or
underdeveloped agriculture.

We must collect, evaluate, strengthen, and implement
best practice on a global scale. Until now this learning process appears overly
bureaucratic, slow, unprofessional, and lacking in dynamism.

We must analyze well beyond the existing limits of
military thought, and begin to deliberate in new international networks and
coalitions as exemplified in Libya.

In an age of towering debts and limited budgets, we
are obliged to calculate precisely what we can afford and which funding mix will
enable maximum output with minimum input.

We must convince the affluent oil countries in MENA, as
well as new powers like China and Brazil, to join more active as our partners the
development process particularly in Africa and take over a part of the global burden.

Fritz Kraemer´s demand for a brilliant foreign
secretary as a mover and shaker in foreign affairs with a touch of musicality
and talent is permanently and systematically ignored in most countries. This
damages the quality of foreign policy enormously, because it remains anaemic.

Most Foreign Offices do not care who serves as their foreign
secretary. This prestigious position is part of a political bargain and a
candidate is not selected on the basis of specialized knowledge, experience, or
qualifications. Tactical political power and a minimum consensus favor smooth
personalities lacking charisma and vision dominating the field in too many
countries.

Do we not require personalities with more experience
and vision, as the world becomes more complex and their tasks more difficult?

The present results of this personnel policy are mediocre
and disappointing, remaining stuck in old-style crisis management.

Foreign policy cannot be learned in a few weeks, just as
flying a jumbo jet cannot be learned quickly by someone used to driving a car.
Extensive experience, solid specialized knowledge, and real talent are
indispensable. Consequently, foreign policy frequently lacks the necessary
personal foundation. This makes it incapable of shaping new facts, but able only
to administer problems.

Must we allow this to continue or are there still
heads of government heeding the quality of foreign secretaries in their
respective cabinets and members of parliament assuming responsibility for
suggesting the best?

Worse, in most countries foreign policy is reduced to
an insignificant area for very few specialists, avoided by politicians striving
to reach the top. It promises no credit in public, because the area ranks low
in public opinion polls. In an exemplary survey in the German Bundestag of
2005, 109 new Bundestag members were asked about their preferred areas of
politics. Only one chose foreign policy. Do we not require more and better
foreign policy experts in parliaments? Who recruits and supports them?

This foreign policy amnesia is an alarming sign;
foreign policy expertise is dwindling while a growing number of challenges are
emerging in our atomized world order. Simultaneously foreign policy is
undergoing a brain-drain, preventing the creative, entrepreneurial conduct
customary in private business.

A possible solution could lie in politically
independent and influential personalities fostering the careers of selected
young, passionate, and qualified politicians in the field of foreign policy
over many years. This would enable paving their way into parliaments from
outside the existing, stultifying system of partisan politics.

A Holy Flame –
Passion and devotion needed

Apple Founder Steve Jobs opened new horizons to
foreign and security personnel and civil servants. In his famous Stanford 2005
Commencement Address he offered the following insights: “The only thing that
kept me going was what I loved what I did. You´ve got to find what you love.
And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going
to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to
do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love
what you do. If you haven´t found it yet, keep looking. Don´t settle. As with
all matters of the heart, you´ll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship,
it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you
find it.”

World 3.0 means foreign policy with love and passion –
a Holy Flame – aiming at changing the
world for the better. Fritz Kraemer wrote in his memo On Elitism, “A life of contemplation, active missionary work for a
cause, is infinitely more desirable than an existence earnestly geared to the
making of money.” We need politicians and young people with passion and
devotion for foreign policy shaping the world.

A mission is needed essentially promoting a just order
with greater respect for the dignity of the individual.

The credibility and moral integrity of political
actors offering Western values and standards to other peoples and countries truly
matter.

The very soul of our democratic foreign policy must
not be risked. We must preserve it wisely and carefully, as something of the
highest worth, like a fragile egg.

I agree with
the plea of Professor Hans Küng from the University of Tübingen in his book World Ethos for World Policy and World
Economy that ethos must be better integrated into foreign affairs as an
important policy factor. The influential book of the German Jewish emigrant
from Coburg Hans J. Morgenthau, Politic
Among Nations (1948), promoted a so called realistic power policy. I agree.
But power only in the old-style World 1.0 is not enough. A soul is also
necessary, combined with a solid power for diplomacy and peace, thus a merger
of power and ethos. Where power thinking and immoral deeds are damaging the
strong flame of freedom and democracy it perverts our Western foreign policy,
producing weakness and reducing the influence and vital powerbase as well. Soft
factors are power too, as Harvard Professor Joseph Nye has established, and play
an ever more important role in the new world.

For these
reasons all factors damaging the reputation of any state should be carefully
analyzed, avoided, and better ceased. In the case of the United States overreactions like Guantanamo Bay or water-boarding of suspects cross
the red line and produce several negative
consequences for morality, recruitment of supporters and terrorists,
credibility and reputation as global moral leader. They reduce the U.S. hard-soft
power base and must therefore be banned.

Those states
which are still power-centric like China and Russia have to consider if their cozy
alignments with brutal dictators like North Korea, Iran, or Syria, or the
suppression of minorities and human rights activists at home reduce their hard
and soft power sum in global politics and should therefore be better ceased to
become stronger.

We need
politicians actively and passionately promoting the soul of Western foreign
policy every day. Fritz Kraemer regretted: “My fear regarding the inner
corrosion of the very successful politician is that he will leave part of his
soul on every rung of the ladder leading him to the top. The harsh school of
upward struggle may, in fact, have made him a master tactician, but the Holy
Fire, the inner passion, the vision has gone, had to go.”

I admire individuals inspired by a glowing Holy Flame
for oppressed human beings, as exhibited by Fritz Kraemer or the French
intellectual and journalist Bernard-Henri Levy. Born in a Jewish family in Algiers, the co-founder of the school of Nouveaux
Philosophes has been fighting for threatened
human beings on a global scale. After a visit to Benghazi,
he organized the first meeting of the French President Nicholas Sarkozy in the Elysee Palace
with Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the leader of the then fragile National Transition
Council. It marked a turning point in their struggle with France subsequently siding with the
rebels.

Good-Bye
Doomsday, Welcome Optimism

Foreign policy ought to be conducted with crisp and
self-confident optimism. Pessimism and doomsday scenarios merely have a
paralyzing effect. The fall of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the USSR, integration of all Eastern European
countries in EU and NATO, the dismantling of the SS-20 IRBM, or the youth
rebellion in North Africa deliver examples of
positive surprises in world politics. The glass is half full and a better world
is possible. We must be active shapers instead of administering the crises –
optimism via self-fulfilling prophecy.

More young responsible
elites needed to promote progress and values

The foundation of every sensible policy as well as
regeneration itself consists in educating a new, responsible generation. The
systematic quest for and permanent support of manifold young elites in all the
world´s countries in politics, economy, and culture is crucial for a new
foreign policy World 3.0.

All existing programs are very laudable, but much too
small and underfunded. We are working with tweezers and need a vacuum cleaner.

We ought to multiply existing education and talent enabling
programmes as well as numerous creative mentor programmes particularly for
countries undergoing radical changes in Africa and Asia.

We must identify many more new talents, support them
on-site, and invite them to join us, providing necessary know how and life-long
contacts as well as nurturing mutual trust.

We have several best practice examples, including The
Harvard International Summer Seminar, directed by Henry Kissinger from 1951 to
1971, where 800 Europeans and Asians were made familiar with American thinking
within a few months. Another example is provided by Sandbox, a global community
of 600 young leaders from 48 different countries, founded in 2008, comprising
extraordinary achievers below the age of 30 who have already had an impressive
impact creating value for the community. Under the direction of Professor Peter
Neumann of King’s College London, 20 Atkin Fellows from Israel and the Arab
world gather annually at the International Centre for the Study of
Radicalisation and Political Violence for four months to develop new ideas for
better understanding in the Middle East. Cosmopolitan inspirer and networker
Lord George Weidenfeld welcomed the first cohort of young scholars in 2007 for
the Weidenfeld Scholarship and Leadership Programme from Eastern
Europe, Russia,
North Africa, and the Middle East organized by
his excellent London-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue. Philipp
Missfelder, the young and talented CDU/CSU spokesman for foreign affairs in the
German Bundestag and chairman of the Junge Union, underlines the importance of
a fresh and active friendship policy with the yet unknown young people in the
Arab Spring, building new connections to support their fight for freedom. The Atlantic Bridge
brings together young individuals from the U.S.
and Germany
every year. Its chairman Friedrich Merz has contributed an article to this
book. In 1991, I was one of the Young Leaders and fascinated by the programme. The
active trans-Atlantic networker Professor Werner Weidenfeld supports young
talents with his Munich-based C.A.P. institute since many years. The largest
Women as Global Leaders Conference, with 1,800 female young leaders from more
than 60 countries, does not take place in emancipated Sweden, but every two
years in Dubai under the direction of the Zayed University of the United Arab
Emirates. The brilliant Higher Education Minister Sheikh Nahayan Mabarak al
Nahayan invited me in 2008 to deliver the conference dinner speech on The Human
Codes of Tolerance with the American actress Jane Fonda as an emancipated
listener in the first row. I like to remember with a smile the start of my
speech when I welcomed her: “Testosterone has arrived at the Women as Global
Leaders Conference, dear Jane...”

Their example should be maximised by nations such as the
U.S., Canada, the European nations, Japan, and South Korea agreeing upon a new
large GlobalLeadership Program and splitting the costs. This fund should be
brought into a foundation providing different non-governmental organizations
with the opportunity to support a variety of special programmes in politics,
agriculture, culture, media, religion, justice, education, or industry for say
100,000 young individuals per year, creating one million in ten years. Qatar with its superb Qatar Foundation and the United Arab Emirates
could be included. Both Gulf states have provided outstanding examples with
first-class universities and renowned institutions. The programme should support
the new elites particularly in MENA, Africa, Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. At the average expenses
of USD 50,000 per scholarship the required funding would amount to USD 5bn per
year split between the U.S., E.U., and Japan with one billion dollar each, and
Canada, South Korea, Qatar, and U.A.E.
with USD 500mn each. I can think of no better investment because it creates
the responsible elite in crisis areas, addresses the future of youth and their
countries, providing a considerable stabilizing effect.

We should not simply award scholarships and convey
knowledge, but develop mentor programmes
following Fritz Kraemer´s example. For this task we require thousands of
experienced personalities capable of conveying guidelines for life to the most talented
young individuals and devoting much time to them.

Crisis regions urgently need know-how in all areas.
Their political and economic decision-making processes are frequently inflexible,
antiquated, and too slow. Their judicial systems may be inoperative. Crisis
regions lack competitiveness providing a basis for the future.

Suitable mentors can be found in the enormous
world-wide pool of the retired in every walk of life. We should recruit mentors
for the elites from different countries, and through skilful personnel policy,
create a permanent foreign policy network with a million new knots. We will provide
assistance for self-help and regeneration through responsible elites as
propagated by Kraemer.

A systematic effort to bring together young people and
experienced mentors is necessary in Western countries as well. Why don´t
foreign and defense secretaries regularly invite young super-talents to
meetings with former ambassadors, state secretaries, and generals, who, acting
as mentors, support those young individuals? Is that not a large untapped
resource with huge potential?

Mentors should not be confused with superiors, looking
after their employees. The young talents will be able to articulate their
concerns and ideas and incorporate the wisdom of Senior Advisors without the
constraints of employment.

A section for mentoring should be created within the
personnel departments of foreign and defense ministries, systematically
focusing on this process, recruiting mentors and bringing them together with
young talents. It should become an integral part of personnel planning in
foreign and defense policy. Guidelines ought to systematize the quest for
talents, providing permanent support.

Creativity, character, and special involvement as well
as self-confidence and innovative thinking must be taken into account more
prominently in official assessment and promotion guidelines than previously. We
do not need more plain and conformist administrators, but instead additional
independent thinkers and shapers, those often discarded by bureaucracies as
non-conformist and unpopular, according to the studies of Fritz Kraemer.
Innovative thinkers are crucial for truly nurturing creativity in rapidly
clogging bureaucracies, and thereby for providing the prerequisites for the
effective conduct of a new foreign policy.

Traditional networks and conventions should include
the young elites and professionals as well. If the inspiring Facebook
Generation is incorporated into the frequently outmoded meetings of foreign
policy elites it is bound to enrich them.

These young individuals are looking for a field of
action away from the now-dominant world of super materialism. They want to
fight for the good and they have a global vision. Their friends come from many countries.
They are active. There are bound to be future Henry Kissingers or Alexander
Haigs among the teeming youth of Africa, China, Europe, or the United States.
It is up to us to become acquainted with them, filter them out, and support
them, as practiced by Fritz Kraemer.

Integrate the
new international NGO networks

A generation ago, the world was still divided into
regions which seemed near or far away. As early as September 29 1969, Fritz
Kraemer described the march of globalization in his memorandum The Modern World, A Single ‘Strategic
Theater’, which he presented to the former U.S. National Security Advisor
Henry Kissinger, who in turn submitted it to President Richard Nixon. “It is
one of the truisms of our time that because of the sensational development of
communications and transportation, the globe has shrunk with distances between
formerly far-away countries having been reduced to mere hours in flight time.
The hallmark is interdependence rather than independence among states. The
whole globe has become a single theater,” the prophet forecast 41 years
ago.

Today we have finally arrived in a global village. The
Dalai Lama put it in a nutshell during a meeting of the World Security Network:
“There is no me and they – the whole world is me.”

International organizations and action groups, such as
the World Economic Forum, Amnesty International, the Open Society Institute of
George Soros, Human Rights Watch, the International Crisis Group, the Young
Presidents Organization, the Catholic lay person organization Sant’Egidio from
Rome and its successful peacemaking efforts in Mozambique in 1992, or the World
Security Network Foundation inspired by Fritz Kraemer – all these organizations
via the worldwide web provide a permanent network for hundreds of thousands of
active individuals from dozens of nations with entirely different ideas.

These people frequently have a closer relationship
with distant acquaintances on the other side of the world than with their
neighbours at home. Such affinity groups share similar thoughts and have
identical interests and notions of the future regardless of whether they live
in New Delhi, Washington,
Berlin, or Cairo.

The international outlook as well as the commitment to
freedom demonstrated by these influential movers and shakers is already changing
the world for the better and having an impact on the foreign policy of national
governments. This is what the innovative thinker Parag Khanna suggests in his
excellent book How to Run the World (New York, 2011): “a
fresh, mega-diplomacy with inclusiveness by involving governments, NGOs, and
companies, decentralization and mutual accountability.”

This new diplomacy goes far beyond the traditional
foreign affairs techniques of diplomats and states, instead offering maximum
flexibility with new public-private partnerships in a fragmented world – as
already practiced by Bernard-Henri Levy. Vice Admiral Charles Style, Commandant
of the Royal College of Defence Studies in London and member of the Advisory
Board of the World Security Network, comments that "the interaction
amongst future high national leaders from over 40 countries at the College each
year points the way: there is an overriding and urgent requirement to build
mechanisms by which understanding can be built cross-culture, cross-sector, and
cross-nation. This is needed both to avert the repetition of past
catastrophic mistakes and also to get onto the front of the white water wave of
international change, by thinking afresh about inclusive internationalist
strategies. Most of us at present do little more than gasp for air in the
turbulent water astern of its unstoppable progress. I am thus personally
convinced of the need for something like the international exchange, learning,
and networking of the type which this chapter suggests".

These new approaches for a World 3.0 reinvigorate
foreign office meetings and stimulate creativity as well as new networks among
innovative young people.

However, they are not meant to be the exotic PR
garments of classic power politics used for decoration by politicians.

The new networks should not limit themselves to promoting
the appropriate soft factors, but must exert direct influence on the
politicians and their plans as well as stimulating young politicians in different
regions and parties. Consequently, the networks must design concrete action
plans and initiate parliamentary resolutions.

Calling for political action through the medium of public
criticism, warnings, or demands usually fizzles out or gets stuck in red tape.
These soft-policy networks should fashion their ideas in a dual strategy of
power and diplomacy, because nothing can be implemented without power. This was
demonstrated in Libya.

The new networked foreign policy is no longer
inter-governmental but inclusive.

Its several centers of gravity are located not only in
the governments of countries but in the global networks of this world´s movers
and shakers as well.

Parting from
eccentric materialism – Turning to values

The networks reflect a re-orientation of human
individuals. The trend in elites is shifting away from excessive materialism
aiming at maximum profit and high-class consumption to a more fulfilled life,
as described by Fritz Kraemer in his chapter OnElitism.

Foreign policy can benefit from contemplation of
values, active support for the environment and for people.

Increasingly individuals around the world bring their
vision and ideas to bear in foreign policy.

Most importantly, the effective foreign policy of any
nation should analyze its national interests and have clear aims, demonstrating
an eagerness and ambition to design its own distinctive foreign policy and not
only to act in the trail of Washington; a regular evaluation is needed as well
and adaption to realities on the ground, demands Dr August Hanning, the former
German BND President and member of the International Advisory Board of the
World Security Network Foundation.

The approach of the (Western) world is still
Washington-centric, which does not fit the reality of a globalized world and is
also overburdening the U.S. Our alliance still reminds me of a family
enterprise where father Uncle Sam has more than 20 grown up sons and daughters
but still makes all decisions and treats them as his children. They wait to see
what bid daddy makes in the lazy back seat of NATO. The same is true in the E.U.
where smaller nations should lead in some areas, not only Germany and France.

It is time to give the allies real global
responsibilities where they take over leadership for the alliance supported by
Washington. Main allies should take the lead-position in hot spots of foreign
affairs, get more involved and take over special tasks in a new diplomatic
burden sharing.

Here are some examples: Estonia is the master pupil of
the E.U. and has established a booming nation out of the ruins of the smallest
republic of the USSR within only 20 years. It could take the lead for the reform
process in Greece for the E.U.
and also in Tunisia and Egypt
on behalf of the E.U. Commission. Denmark
could take care of the reconciliation process in the Western Sahara conflict
between Morocco and Algeria.
Norway can lead in the Israel/Palestine talks for the E.U. France may
coordinate the peace process in the Caucasus and Syria together with Turkey. The
United Kingdom
could lead the anti-piracy mission. Germany
has the best image of all NATO countries in Pakistan
and its dominant military as it has provided a lot of crucial weapons to Pakistan in their two wars with India
under the Hallstein Doctrin in 1965 and 1971. Berlin
should therefore take the lead in all peace negotiations for Afghanistan including Pakistan and ask for good will from
the ISI and the Pakistani generals in return under Pashtun friendship customs. Japan could coordinate a reconciliation process
for Kashmir with India and Pakistan.

Washington must provide leadership and back those negotiations
with its power-projection, but should use its allies to get hot potatoes out of
the fire.

The chief negotiator should represent the E.U., NATO
and Washington with the U.S. and other nations represented in a Joint NATO-
E.U. Team.

Until now this process is almost paralysed as all
allies look for decisions from the U.S. and do almost nothing without a plan
from Washington (exception Libya in 2011) as this is an easy low-profile
position for the passive administrators.

Creativity,
creativity, creativity

The West knows how to market perfectly Apple´s iPhone,
Big Mac, Porsche, Facebook, or Gucci. Hundreds of thousands of talented people
deal with marketing strategies developing new ideas every day on a global
level. In foreign policy, we are light years away from that. This realm is
dominated by unimaginative administrative policy focusing on crisis management,
mere analyses, and administration of problem areas. Form and style are highly
regarded, not, however, substance and result. Renowned institutes and large
conventions analyse problems, but do not offer creative solutions. This
approach needs a fundamental re-orientation shifting the new focus to creative
actions and comprehensive planning.

Just one example by August Hanning: We know the
backers of piracy and the money-flow, including their houses in Dubai, but do
not put them on a black-list like terrorists; instead our ships patrol the
Indian Ocean at a high cost. It is a clear interest of trading countries like
Germany, China, Japan, or the U.S. to guarantee free global trade on the oceans,
but where is an effective joint action plan against pirates as in the Strait of
Malacca where land-bases where destroyed ?

We urgently require more creativity as an important
element of World 3.0. It ought to be guided by the wisdom of creative geniuses
such as Albert Einstein, who often repeated: “Imagination is more important
than knowledge” and “We can´t solve problems by using the same level of
thinking we used when we created them.

Options and
planning

Most important in crafting a foundation for a new
approach in foreign affairs are the following steps: analyzing all available
options, carefully integrating them into strategy, and considering the entire
range of opinions at home as well as abroad, thereby avoiding manipulation in
one direction.

We need volumes of option papers with price tags and
time schedules from all departments of defense, foreign affairs, international
development including NGOs, research institutes and associations leading to a
common action plan for implementation. Best start with the Afghanistan mission.

We ought to collect systematically the experiences of
crisis countries with civil development and military interventions during the
last decades, discuss them among the allies and devise a framework plan for the
most effective support in future.

We should not invent the wheel again and again, but
collect experiences from the past, and truly learn from history.

Better
planning of international missions – no ignorance and arrogance please!

For every international mission, we require precise
and comprehensive planning of all details as well as a screen play for a period
of at least ten years. The missions in Iraq
and Afghanistan
lacked that.

Success depends on hard and soft factors: military, diplomatic,
forms of government and federal concepts, economic development, agriculture,
energy and water supply, education, supporting new elites and the important social
groups.

Planning must be conducted by regularly monitoring
funding as well as implementation of objectives in a comprehensible and
manageable way.

We always demand both an entry and an exit scenario as
well as a realistic time frame and contingency plans detailing what we would
like to do and what can and must be achieved.

We must therefore be able to estimate mission expenses
and what we are willing to spend.

We must avoid any ignorance and arrogance which allows
us to underestimate small undeveloped countries and shift our perceptions from
the Potomac or the Thames to the Tigris or Khyber Pass.
All planning must begin with analyses of what individuals in foreign countries
require and what satisfies their specific needs. We have to think and act
locally. This corresponds with Fritz Kraemer´s demand to know the psychology of
the nations involved. Too often we find ourselves in a Western perception trap
ignoring the local situation.

Get away from the mania and mantra of huge
international peace conferences, state visits, and UN debates and return to
earth by asking what the local population thinks, needs, and wants.

Interventions only make sense if it is possible to set
up an acceptable, reliable, and just government supported by the country´s
population; otherwise everything is built on quicksand.

Wasting tax revenue due to corruption undermines the
confidence of both the local people and one´s own electorate in our political
actions. Hence all funds must be linked to liability and punitive clauses
permitting international courts impartial examination of corruption
accusations. Previously the monitoring of funds has resembled a toothless
tiger, more or less encouraging abuse. When I complained to a high-ranking
advisor of the former Russian President Yeltsin that individuals close to the
Kremlin had misappropriated USD 400m of Western aid in the late 1990s, he frankly
replied: “Who is responsible: the bear who eats the honey pot, or the farmer
who put it into the woods.” He was right, blame us, not them.

Cost
efficiency

Every option needs a price tag. We need to know the
cost of action or non-action as precisely as possible. Currently in foreign
policy vagueness prevails. Ultimately wars cost trillions of dollars and Euros,
with the U.S. having already
spent an estimated USD 800bn in Iraq
and USD 440bn in Afghanistan
alone. An additional USD 400bn had been spent for other purposes in the war on
terror.

Every foreign affairs craftsman knows well: never use
expensive military tools if you can reach the same goal with less expensive,
softer ones. How much more security did we get for so much money?

Timing and
action control

Each item in the action plan needs realistic short-
and long-term time labels. Every six months the governments concerned must regulate
the efficiency of actions using a check list; just like any craftsman or
entrepreneur monitoring the progress of their business activities.

Reporting and
open debate

In open and democratic societies, politicians must
make public their intentions and objectives as well as when and how they intend
to achieve them. Nothing should be concealed. Each government should provide a
detailed annual report to their parliament concerning international hot spots
such as Afghanistan.
In 2010, working with all political parties in the German Bundestag, the World
Security Network promoted the publication of an annual Progress Report on Afghanistan for
the first time after nine years in combat. Democracies are strong if they
permit open debate and weak if everything is covered up and not carefully
discussed in parliaments as well as in public.

Smart double
strategies needed

For all hot spots we need sophisticated dual strategies
combining power and reconciliation, military and diplomacy, economic
development and stabilization.

Unfortunately too often chaotic crisis management and the
fragmented parallel planning of the military, diplomatic corps, and development
aid agencies prevent achieving maximum output with minimum input. This must
change quickly, because we must achieve more with less money.

With all the facts, different opinions, and options
available and knowing the costs as well as the local human needs, the drafting
of a dual strategy paper begins by including all the soft and hard factors of
peacemaking. The best and most efficient as well as the less expensive
operative options are part of the detailed master plan. The prevailing approach
of holding one conference after another is ineffective. The expertise outlined
in papers must take into account all the economic and social aspects of
interventions including energy supply, jobs, agricultural production, food
supply, and educational opportunities.

Only a dual strategy with two equally important
pillars consisting of hard and soft elements, power and reconciliation, is
capable of addressing these challenges. More than ever we need such smart power
policies for each global hot spot. This worked excellently with the NATO Harmel
Report of 1967 which combined defense and deterrence capabilities with détente.
This concept provided the foundation for NATO´s Two Track Decision in December 1979
linking the deployment of Pershing II and cruise missiles with a zero-option
should the Soviet Union destroy its SS-20
missiles.

Let us not be naïve: we need hard and soft elements.
This was made very clear by Fritz Kraemer who taught us that raw power is
needed to check wild fanatics. Diplomacy requires the threat of power to back
it up and nothing works without this strong fundament of World 1.0.

Carl von Clausewitz tried to show in his famous book On War that war is the continuation of
politics by other (hard) means. Therefore (soft) political factors prevail over
weapons which are merely tools of politics.
This political thinking, favored by Clausewitz, is too often pushed
aside by a purely technocratic, military-oriented planning process. Weapons and
their use must be part of an over-arching political approach embedded in a
clever political master plan. Devising it and discussing all available options
require time – as Kraemer pointed out.

We must be aware of the fact that soft factors are not
the same as weakness, and hard factors should not always be confused with
strength. Soft factors can turn out to be strong if employed intelligently and
hard factors can ultimately result in weakness where they are not backed by a
smart political concept. Therefore a merger of soft and hard factors is needed
in new double strategies extending the basis of power by employing the smart
new approaches of World 3.0.

We need a new, larger toolbox – a Manual World 3.0 –
encompassing the best practices from all conflicts as well as scholarly
compendiums of lessons learned from all echelons of political and social life,
such as diplomacy, think tanks, military, economy (jobs, water, energy,
agriculture), education, as well as recruiting and setting up an elite. Thus we
can draw lessons from the mistakes of the past and implement an effective
foreign policy to shape a safer world in the age of globalization.

We must stick to our perpetual principles and
maintain sufficient military power as a basis of foreign affairs. Simultaneously
we must strive to be innovative, creative, flexible, and cost-efficient,
master-minding and creating a better world for our children.

Appropriate
and sensible defense efforts vital

The Europeans continue to waste too much money on the
development of different national defense products such as tanks or aircraft.
The Pentagon is still pumping funds into antiquated military projects pressed
into budget planning by influential lobbies. These outdated procurement
procedures require urgent scrutiny: the results are not convincing, too much
money is wasted, and some of the equipment plans originate in the Cold War. New
methods of attack, such as cyber warfare, require innovative defense methods as
well.

Sufficient and credible defense capabilities must be
maintained. Europe in particular has
needlessly neglected its defense expenditures instead of working to pool
capacities with less money and to reduce rampant bureaucracy. Why not produce
one European submarine with a unified command, or two EU aircraft
carriers? Why is there no united air lift
but national structures? Why can 2.1 million soldiers in Europe
only send 60,000 troops abroad? European foreign policy is impotent and
impossible without sufficient investment in defense and smart joined European
structures.

Human rights
and UN-concurrent constitutions

The protection and support of human rights as well as
the implementation of the UN Charter on a global level constitute the soul of
foreign policy We consider human dignity inviolable and the essence of
politics. In authoritarian countries, the president and his family clan or the
ruling political party are the measure of all things to which millions of
people are subordinated. The free people are contrasted with the subjected
people.

The UN Charter of June 26 1945 proposes a broad
security approach resting not only on the concept of deterrence or military
power. Its objectives are more timely than ever, because they reflect the
understanding of life of today’s elite in almost every country as well as their
desire for self-determination.

“We the people of the United Nations determine to save
succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has
brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human
rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of
men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under
which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other
sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress
and better standards of life in large freedom, and for these ends: to practice
tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to
ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that
armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ
international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social
advancement of all peoples.”

The freedom-loving, democratic societies succeeded in
the struggle against two powerful totalitarian ideologies, National Socialism
and Communism. These societies paid a high price with a great number of victims
and the active involvement of numerous individuals such as Fritz Kraemer from
the beginning of World War II in 1939 to the disintegration of the USSR
in 1991. In hot and cold conflicts spanning 42 years with more than 50 million
victims and endless suffering for millions of human beings, the democracies
finally prevailed. This was an enormous endeavor
covering two generations. The dictators nearly prevailed. We were successful,
however, because our ideology corresponded with the true needs and values of individual
people who won their liberties in a heroic struggle.

Currently we are involved in a new phase of a struggle
with the two large authoritarian countries, the People’s Republic of China and Russia,
as well as the remaining small dictatorships of Iran
and North Korea.
They are intent on preserving state power and rejecting the full implementation
of democratic UN principles as well as respect for all human rights. Will the
system of free democracies or the concept of state-managed development with politically
deprived citizens prevail?

Once more we require an active and prudent policy
focusing on the courageous implementation of UN principles as well as clear
advocacy of these values in a friendly dialogue with China
and Russia.

American and NATO interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan helped develop fragile
democratic structures whose survival appears uncertain. The erection of
democracies in the underdeveloped countries of North Africa and the Middle East must be achieved through a prudent, phased
policy. The first step ought to be the elaboration of democratic constitutions
adapted to local conditions as well as their protection through an independent
constitutional court. The UN Charter, as well as best practices proven by the
successful and phased erection of the Federal Republic of Germany from 1945 to
1949 on the ruins of the Nazi dictatorship, serve as an example. Constitutional
conventions endowed with all the authority of the country´s political and ethnical
forces and factions are able to provide the basis of a positive development. We
must build and support thousands of partnerships with the different elements of
freedom as was done with the democratic movements in Eastern
Europe.

Instabilities and uprisings spring up all over the
world from a lack of justice and freedom and the conscience of poor living
conditions as seen in the Arab Spring. Any ally of the West must improve both
or it will be a source of conflict. Peace-making without justice, freedom, and
fair living conditions is a mission impossible.

A focus on centralized presidential constitutions,
which the U.S. mistakenly
forced upon Afghanistan or Iraq,
must be avoided. Instead decentralized, indigenous structures should be
fostered on the local levels. This enables fair participation of different
tribes and the different regions in the development of their country.

I
agree with the sentiments of my friend Professor Friedbert Pflüger in his Kings College
speech in London
in 2009: “Human
rights should be one cornerstone of a democracy’s foreign policy. The spread of
individual freedom, democracy, and justice enhances also the security of free
nations. Human rights can only be protected and safeguarded at home if they are
also a serious issue abroad. A democracy, which enjoys rights at home, but does
not care about rights abroad, will lose the support of its own people.
Different cultures, historical backgrounds, or religious traditions do not
allow us to apply the concept of a Westminster
democracy everywhere at any time. Therefore human rights policies should
concentrate on gross violations of rights such as torture. Its aim should be to
fight the hell, not to create heaven. Accordingly not preaching, a we-know-better attitude, arrogance, or self-righteousness
should be avoided. Human rights policy may not come about as moral
imperialism.”

If freedom movements in one country are being cruelly
suppressed by a dictator, the revolutions could be supported by founding and
assisting Free Parliaments in exile in specific cases, such as done for Syria, and
needed as well for Iran, Belarus, or Cuba. These institutions could draft UN
concurrent constitutions and represent the will of the oppressed peoples while
the UN Charter and human rights are not respected in their home countries. The
recognition of the National Transitional Council in Benghazi,
Libya, by many countries and
the establishment of a Syrian National Council in Istanbul in 2011 were steps in this right
direction.

Promote the
Human Codes of Tolerance and Respect

Tolerance and respect are the lifeblood of peaceful
coexistence and crucial elements of the soft powers of peacemaking.

As the American philosopher Eric Hoffer once said, “a
war is only won after you have turned the defeated enemy into your friend.”

The German philosopher Emmanuel Kant wrote: “The state
of peace among men and women is not the natural state – a state of peace must
be established.”

A key recognition in achieving this is that a successful
strategy for any crisis which demands international intervention must aim to
give all the actors involved what World Security Network UK Trustee Major
General ret. Sir Sebastian Roberts has called “a golden bridge to the future,
of realistic hope and self respect”.

These wise sayings are truer today than ever before.
The soft factors of peacemaking are often sidelined in favor of harder military
instruments. Moreover, the focus on the promotion of stability by military
means and homeland security has led to an unbalanced approach.

The human soul – which Fritz Kraemer considered
important in politics – the needs of the victims of oppression, as well as
their suffering at the heart of peacemaking have almost been forgotten. Instead
cold power policy has prevailed, unable to produce real stability and perpetual
peace.

World 3.0 must integrate the wisdom of experts in
reconciliation like my friend Archbishop Alfons Nossol from Opole/Oppeln in
Upper Silesia in Poland who over decades has made an immense contribution to reconciling
the Germans and the Polish people – so called ‘archenemies’ for hundreds of
years, teaching: “Only a real, honest policy of reconciliation can bring about
long-lasting peace and create the foundation for a thriving coexistence between
former enemies. Power politics is a necessary complement to this peace policy,
to the extent that it helps protect human rights and human dignity and checks
the powers of evil. Power politics as such is, however, insufficient: its
effect is too limited; it leads in the wrong direction. It must subordinate
itself to the primacy of the “thinking heart” and “loving mind.” Power politics
is only justified in the service of peace. We must give a strong voice to the
Christian message of peace in order to provide it with significance in all
countries, cultures, and religions. Only then will we eliminate the deep-seated
roots of terrorism, war, and displacement and bring about a world with less
hatred and less violence. A Christian peace policy means: We must see our enemy
as a person and as our neighbor possessing individual dignity. We must approach
him with an open heart and express convincingly our will to reconciliation and
a new beginning. An active policy of reconciliation shatters the encrusted
shell of ideology from darker years; through intensive work it melts away
traditional prejudices and stimulates the will on all sides to end the tragedy
of animosities.”

Nossol
demands that we should not merely tolerate others; rather, we should accept
them with all their differences. This does not mean self-abandonment, but
respect for the special features, characteristics, and traditions of a world
with seven billion people, so richly diverse in cultures and ideals.

We now need a global promotion of tolerance as well as
a new state of peace and balance for our global village encompassing all
religions and other positive forces on Earth. We need a global vision and a
soul. We need globally respected moral values and their continuous promotion.
Then we shall be able to avoid the often proclaimed clash of civilizations, and
demonstrate that the real clash is that between the perversions and prejudices
of civilisations: the clash of barbarisms.

We own this world intellectually – we have influence –
we have the power – we have a vast pool of creativity and optimism.

I am calling for an elite capable of taking over the
promotion of tolerance and respect as the common soul of our global village now,
without having to wait for politics.

I am calling for the impeachment of the few extremists
by empowering in all countries a responsible elite to work for a better world
of moral values, particularly for our children.

We already have Human Codes of Tolerance and Respect
(for details see www.codesoftolerance.com; which is a focus project of the World
Security Network Foundation) in all religions and cultures. We have only forgotten
our common roots. They can be found in Christianity, in Judaism, in Hinduism,
and in Buddhism – the respect for creatures as well as the promotion of human
dignity and love.

We all must promote our common values very actively
and stand up as the no-longer silent majority in all 192 states against the
propaganda of hate.

Contain and unmask
the radicals

Most Muslim as well as Western countries are bound to
be involved in struggles against Islamist militant movements, including
al-Qaeda, within and beyond their own borders over the next decades.

The hard factors of security are essential and play a
dominant role, but will not be enough to win. Insufficient attention is still
being paid to the soft factors of peace-making, comprising two elements:

First, a roll-back policy aimed at de-radicalizing,
demobilizing, and re-integrating individuals and groups involved in insurgency
and terrorism.

Second, a smart containment policy aimed at preventing
fresh recruitment of young Muslims to kill fellow-Muslims as well as Western
individuals “in the name of Allah”.

Several national governments, such as those in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Yemen, Saudi Arabia, or Somalia, will also be confronted
with the task of demobilizing and re-integrating former terrorists and
insurgents.

More than a dozen countries – including Singapore, Saudi
Arabia, and Algeria – have already successfully
established so called de-radicalization and disengagement programs aimed at
facilitating the social re-integration of enemy combatants, ensuring they will
not return to violent jihad.

An important part of the effort is to convince the
former radicals of Islam´s true character.

Terrorist criminals and hate preachers around the
world justify their deeds with commandments from Islam, both from the Qur’an
and the example of the prophet, the Hadith.

In their view, these acts are justified; they are in
fact part of their duty as Muslims and thus not evil but good. This distorted
interpretation of Islam motivates and instigates their crimes and must be the
focus of any containment and roll-back policy. The containment of and struggle
against Islamic extremism and criminals should therefore direct its focus on
the ideological level of Islam.

If there is convincing evidence that neither the
Qur’an nor the Hadith justify acts of terror, then Islam-based terrorism can be
denied the oxygen required for its survival, limiting its attractiveness for
followers and de-masking the perpetrators as pure criminals.

One can even go a few steps further: whoever claims to
kill in the name of Islam, yet does not have actual justification from Islam,
places himself outside the Islamic community (Ummah), isolates himself,
degrades Islam, and sins against the conscience of the prophet himself. He is
guilty according to the Sharia and must therefore be punished in accordance
with Islamic law. Consequently the following approach is proposed.

The Higher Ifta´ Council, established by the
organization of Islamic Conferences with representative councillors from throughout
the Muslim World issuing fatwas on all pertinent issues, should be
institutionalised as the main clearing committee for Muslim as well as Western
countries in cases of terrorism with the purpose of benchmarking their actions against
true Islam. The King of Saudi Arabia should establish a new Council of Islamic
legal experts. Foreign courts, public prosecutors, and government departments
could turn to such a council to obtain binding expert opinions for the
judgement of crimes justified by Islam (“Royal Sharia Council of the Custodian
of the Holy Mosques of Mecca and Medina”).

When invoked, this Council would quickly decide
Islamic legal questions presented to it and deliver its expert opinion. Since
terrorist crimes resemble one another, the Council can treat numerous cases
with the same formulation. The committee should include the Imams of the two
holiest sites of Islam, since their opinions carry particular weight. According
to Islamic law, killing of civilians in Jihad is principally forbidden;
moreover, terrorist acts and the preaching of violence are violations of the
Qur´an and the Hadith.

Terrorists should be excluded from the Community of
the Believers by a formal Sharia-ruling as non-believers and should be no
longer allowed to visit Mecca
or any mosque for many years or even their life-time.

The expert opinions of this Council would deprive both
preachers of violence and terrorist criminals of their “ideological oxygen”. Furthermore
expert advice serves as an important instrument against the recruitment of
further terrorists.

These expert opinions can be used in ongoing criminal
trials in Muslim and Western countries for the purpose of evaluating possible
means of justification and the degree of personal guilt.

This measure underscores the particular
characteristics of terrorist guilt. Expert opinions increase the effectiveness
of court rulings in non-Muslim countries that have suffered Islamist extremist
terrorism, such as the U.S.,
the U.K., or Spain and Germany and strengthen the
deterrent effect of the penalty.

We have to contain and impeach all radicals, whether
they are Koran-burning fanatics in Florida,
extremist and violent Israeli settlers on the West Bank, or right-wing
Neo-Nazis in Germany.
The so-called silent majorities in all countries must stand up, articulate
their demands and fight for our vision of a free and better world.

Red line for XXL-Greedies
who ruin the capitalistic fundament of democracy

The American-dominated West was capable of winning the
war against Adolf Hitler´s inhuman Nazi totalitarianism as well as against
Communism during the Cold War because it had an enormous economic power
potential at its disposal.

Without economic power, the sword of military power
remains dull.

Just imagine that the economies of the Warsaw Pact and
the USSR had prospered like those in the West. In this case the Communists
would be ruling Russia and Europe. We prevailed in the Cold War because the
centrally controlled communist economies failed, resulting in the implosion of
Communist societies.

The Communist Party of the People´s Republic of China
learnt these lessons and has consolidated its power with economic reforms and
an annual growth of ten percent during the past 30 years.

The United
States and its European allies urgently need
a solid economic base in order to afford sufficient armed forces, current
modernization programs, development aid, as well as economic support for
underdeveloped countries.

Moreover, they face the challenge of avoiding
destabilization caused by high unemployment (which paralyzed the Weimar
Republic in Germany during the 1920s and 30s) and preserving the attractiveness
of liberal political orders in competition with authoritarian concepts
practiced in the People´s Republic of China and Russia. Until now we have taken
the West´s economic supremacy for granted.
China´s rise will fundamentally alter this power balance.

The XXL-Greedies are sawing away at the branch on
which we all are sitting in the West. Excesses created by the exaggerated greed
for profit, developed at Wall Street in the 1990s and spread throughout the
entire world, endanger the credibility of our capitalist democratic orders and
considerably weaken the attractiveness of the U.S. in the system competition with
authoritarian countries.

The negative impact on state budgets additionally
undermines our ability to finance our defense capabilities as well as our
foreign and development policies. Moreover, they substantially endanger the
stability of several countries and thus pose a new national threat.

Capitalism is good, but excessive greed destroying the
foundation of our democratic societies is lethal.

Simple hard-working people have been driven into debt
by the large credit card oligarchs, families ruined by debt for their housing,
and whole states by many billions of too cheap money with wrong ratings of all
risks involved. Banks and funds made commissions and profits pushing global
debt over the cliff. Having placed several billions in large corporations as an
investor and adviser for hedge funds, I know outstanding, responsible founders,
but I am also familiar with unscrupulous speculators who only attach importance
to money, not caring about the political impact of their business activities.
Those excesses cannot be accepted any longer since they destroy the foundation
of our democracy. This is capitalistic terrorism of the majority by a few
greedies.

It’s the banks, not the tanks: The large banks –
particularly Goldman Sachs which has been said to rule the world – carry great
responsibility for this budgetary foundation of our common security. The
American President, Congress, and the E.U. must remind banks and large hedge
funds of their patriotic responsibility and must remove the weeds of subversive
speculation through stricter regulations.

Simultaneously the governments of the U.S. and Europe
must bring their budgets in order within the next ten years and reduce their
excessively high deficits to an upper level of 60 percent of GDP. Then we can
avoid the permanent paralysis of capitalism and authoritarian systems
prevailing over democracies. It appears ironic and objectionable that China
is both the United States´ most powerful adversary and its largest creditor and
banker.

The
annual meeting of the economic elites at the World Economic Forum in Davos, founded
by genius global networker and fresh thinker Klaus Schwab, reveals a growing
responsibility of this peer group for positive global development including
climate protection and support for underdeveloped countries.“Capitalism,
in its current form, no longer fits the world around us. We have failed to
learn the lessons from the financial crisis. A global transformation is
urgently needed and it must start with reinstating a global sense of social
responsibility,” said Klaus Schwab at
the World Economic Forum 18th January 2012. The 60 year-old German model
of the Social Market Economy with a domesticated capitalism, economic growth,
stable and human workings conditions, good healthcare, high protection of the
environment, and a maximum of freedom is very successful and a global benchmark,
not perfect but worth learning from and copying as a best practice.

More needs to be done to promote the responsibilities
of the economic elite for ethical standards and human progress as well. Or as
Friedrich The Great already demanded 220 years ago: successful leaders must be
an example of living values for their people or fail. Prussian values like integrity, honor,
discipline, and service to the country need a revival in many nations best
combined with a fresh American spirit and a zeal for individual liberty, a
splendid combination of the good old and the new.

Fair trade
relations with the developing countries

"International trade and investment are the most
important drivers of economic growth in the developing world," explains Ambassador
Frank Lavin, former Undersecretary for International Trade at the U.S.
Department of Commerce. "It can also be an important socio-politico
integrator, helping less-developed societies connect with ideas, talent, and
markets around the world. However, not all nations are equipped to
benefit from this opportunity. The developed nations must work with the
developing nations to help the needy countries develop investment codes and a
regulatory environment to make prosperity as easy as possible to
attain."

Peace policy must keep an eye on the roots of
conflicts. In numerous countries millions of people are struggling for
survival. Food production is insufficient. Small farmers have been abandoned by
the national governments. While a billion people in the industrialized world
have too much to eat and are suffering from obesity, another billion people in
impoverished countries are undernourished. The West must provide fair sales
opportunities for commodities from conflict regions and developing countries
and boost agricultural production in partnership with national governments.
Creative and innovative approaches are necessary in order to defuse simmering
conflict potential. Otherwise the germs of terrorism, piracy, and hatred can
settle in open wounds.

To make matters worse, the international prices of
important commodities such as wheat, corn, rice, and cooking oil have been
driven upwards over several years by a few greedy hedge funds. Although it is
not the only and maybe not even the main factor, as weather conditions, higher
demand and other factors have an important impact, this speculation adds to
price increases substantially. In 2010, the price of food increased by a third.
Investment in food derivatives such as futures and options have increased
greatly with larger investors coming in. The website of the Chicago Board of
Trade even encourages speculators to "speculate based on expectations of
directional price or spread movement in rough rice.” Large banks are indirectly
involved in these investments. Millions of investments from pension funds and
life insurance companies nurture this speculation with agricultural raw
materials.

It should be an international principle that one
should never speculate with the food of millions of impoverished people. In the
Horn of Africa alone, 12 million people suffered from famine in 2011,
destabilizing the countries of East Africa and Ethiopia
and in turn spurring chaos and terrorism in Somalia. There is a transgression
of capitalism´s red line. A stop sign is necessary. We must not tolerate this
decadence. The UN as well as individual nation states ought to develop
instruments to curtail this dangerous and unscrupulous capitalism. Speculators
must be committed to a socially responsible market economy. Effective
instruments to contain destabilizing speculation could comprise a variety of
measures: introduction of obligatory disclosure by the U.S. Commodity Futures
Trading Commission and different stock exchange monitoring commissions, a ban
on so called empty sales as well as investments of pension funds and life insurances, a high
special tax on such food speculation as well as ruling out public orders and
trading with government bonds by all banks and funds directly or indirectly
involved in such transactions.

Each of us
carries a responsibility for our Global Village

This first draft of just a few new foreign policy
ideas for today´s world must be further enhanced and refined. We should all add
to the discussion to improve our foreign policy and get actively involved.

World 3.0 depends on sufficient defense capability,
which must be preserved. Without it the shell would lack a core and the forces
of progress would be naked and defenseless. World 3.0 rests on the classic
World 1.0 of power and national interest but continues its development. It
provides a link between the indispensable hard factors and the important,
manifold, and often overlooked soft factors of peace-making aiming at tailored,
innovative double strategies for peace and liberty. It is responsive to the
will of the local population and does not force our values and ideas onto
others. It activates the new global elites for a responsible improvement of the
world in all areas on the moral foundation of the UN Charter and human rights.
Its instruments are global networks, knowledge transfer through mentoring
programs, creativity, passion, promotion of the Human Codes of Tolerance and
Respect, containment of radicals, improved planning and control as well as
large personal commitment. This new designed foreign policy is preventative,
action-oriented, extensive, profound, and widely responsible for the peaceful
development of billions of world citizens. At the same time it is a rejection
of the moral relativism characterizing extremists of all kinds and an appeal to
the civic spirit of the mostly silent majorities of 99 percent currently
leaving the stage of world policy to the very few loud radicals.

In the Global Village everyone – the smart politician,
the wealthy hedge fund manager, the poor student, the brave soldier, the
elegant diplomat, or the prudent housewife – carry part of the responsibility
in a global puzzle, whether they live in China, or the United States, South
Africa, Norway or Egypt.

For what?

For more respect and harmony. For a safer and better
future for our children and grandchildren as well as seven billion other human
beings next to you in peace, liberty, and human dignity.

Don´t wait for the UN, for your President, or for a
miracle.

Seize your opportunity – get involved now in Networking a Safer World 3.0 with the World
Security Network Foundation and join!